Editorial: Wiretap balance must remain intact

Who knows you are reading this? Was someone listening to that phone call you made last night? Was the e-mail you sent to a friend earlier today just between the two of you, or was your little in-joke available to multitudes?

New technologies have given rise to privacy concerns that no one could have imagined just a short time ago. When communicating meant picking up the telephone at home or dropping a letter into the mailbox, there was a clear and obvious expectation of privacy.

No one was listening to your calls or reading your mail. That’s what happened to suspected criminals - after a judge gave the go-ahead, of course.

But now that much communication moves through the air rather than along copper wires or between post offices, the concept of a “wiretap” has had to change, too. With no literal wire to tap, authorities have looked for ways to keep up with new technologies, and privacy advocates have understandably grown increasingly worried.

What’s needed today, however, is the same fundamental balance we’d always had: The citizenry must have an expectation of privacy. And authorities must be able to check up on suspected criminals, with proper authorization, and without ridiculous delays.

The desired balance is clear - and attainable. Which is not to suggest that implementation will be a breeze. We do not know how we’ll be communicating with one another a few years down the virtual road. But when we use some heretofore unimagined device to make dinner plans with a friend, we’ll expect our suggestion to be for her eyes only. When authorities suspect that a drug kingpin is using a similar device, though, officials should be able to monitor those messages. As long as that balance is the goal, the shrieks of the fearful and the paranoid - from either extreme - will not win the day.